Do nations need nuclear weapons?

A giant column of dark smoke rises more than 20,000 feet into the air, after the second atomic bomb ever used in warfare explodes over the Japanese port and town of Nagasaki, in this August 9, 1945 file photo.

If a nuclear war were to start today there will be no victor, no vanquished.

On August 6, 1945, the first atom bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, creating a new war paradigm — destroying an entire city. On August 9, the second atom bomb destroyed the city of Nagasaki. Tens of thousands of unarmed citizens, irrespective of gender, region and religion, were killed instantly. The law of warfare was thus violated by a technically advanced democratic state that swore “In God We Trust.”

Japan is the only country that has witnessed the nuclear holocaust. Hospitals, schools, factories, offices, nursing homes, police stations, post offices, railway stations, fire engines, ambulances, tram cars, moving and stationary vehicles, homes, temples, churches and parks — everything was obliterated. A new word, “Hibakusha,” was added to the Japanese language to describe the 1945 atom bomb victims and their yet-to-be-born children. Today, there are about 300,000 registered “Hibakushas” under free medical care but marriage with a “Hibakusha” is taboo in the Japanese society.

Today's weapons of mass destruction are far more advanced than the atom bombs dropped over Japan. Yet the mad nuclear arms race is high on the political agenda of most neo-cons, super-patriots, religious fanatics and arms dealers. David Krieger of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation rightly said: “One bomb could destroy one city. A few bombs could destroy a country and a few dozen nuclear bombs could reduce [the entire] civilisation to total ruins.” If a nuclear war were to start today, by mistake or intentionally, there will be no victor, no vanquished. And with Space Age planning, it is most likely to spread into outer space.

Notwithstanding the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, there are about 22,000 nuclear warheads mostly in the arsenal of the U.S. and Russia. Eight thousand are in the operational ready mode and 2,000 are on high alert. Also, there are 14,000 Plutonium cores (pits) and 5000 Canned Assemblies in the storages of Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU). Moreover, 28 countries have the capacity to build at least one bomb and 12 countries can make 20 bombs. Besides, all “peaceful” nuclear power reactors provide rich spent fuel which is reprocessed to produce weapons-grade plutonium.

According to the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, some 500,000 kg of plutonium are in stockpiles, which could be available to sub-nationalist “freedom fighters” of any race or religion. Once a nuclear war begins, there will be no struggle between good and evil, the jihadis and the infidels, dharma and adharma. “Survivors will envy the dead,” as Nikhita Khrushchev warned.

Following the SAARC conference in Bhutan, ministerial meetings between Islamabad and New Delhi have rightly focussed on terrorism. But Islamabad's nuclear programme is India-specific. Its 70-80 nuclear bombs are aimed at Indian strategic locations. In contrast, New Delhi has strategically stockpiled 80-90 nuclear warheads but is committed to the no-first-use doctrine. Nonetheless, India has a Credible Nuclear Deterrence policy.

The question, however, is how far can the deterrence policy deter a jihadi? Would a rapid deployment n-force pre-empt a suicide bomber who might carry a nuclear device in a laptop cover?

During the Kargil conflict, Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee realised the futility of a nuclear war. However, we do not find enough debate on the issue in political circles. While the scientific community appears meek and docile, a whistleblower risks being called unpatriotic. In the U.S., Robert Oppenheimer was penalised for opposing the nuclear arms race. In the Soviet Union, Andrey Sakharov, “the father of Hydrogen bomb,” paid the price for opposing nuclear weapons. But it was his campaign against the WMDs that eventually guided Mikhail Gorbachev to bring the Cold War to an end. The history of science recorded Sakharov's courageous role.

The Concerned Scientists established the Nuclear Nights and Nuclear Winter paradigm in 1985, declaring that a nuclear war cannot be fought, nor can it be won. Moscow and Washington, having signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, nevertheless face the costly problem of keeping thousands of decommissioned nuclear warheads safe. New Delhi and Islamabad can still stay off the nuclear abyss. The problem, however, is how to overcome the outdated jingoism prevailing on both sides of the divide.

U.S. President Barack Obama and Russian President Dmitri Medvedev have signed a MoU to further reduce the stockpiles of nuclear warheads. The Concerned Scientists have appealed to political leaders and governments to give up WMDs before it is too late. However, it is a sad reality that the most civilised citizens around the globe still support the nuclear arms race.

During the Cold War years, the U.S. and the Soviet Union developed elaborate civil defence and underground survival system. There was also an early warning system in place. But due to the proximity of major population centres in India and Pakistan, there is no scope for an early warning system. In less then 30 seconds, short-range missiles, the most advanced bombers, can cover all strategic locations and major civic centres, including New Delhi and Islamabad.

The nuclear path will lead us to a point of no return from the nuclear night and nuclear winter lasting a thousand years. We may be divided. But peace and friendship are the only alternative for the survival of the civilisation. We call upon the leaders of India and Pakistan to “remember your humanity and forget the rest,” as pointed out by the Russell-Einstein Manifesto. We appeal to Parliament to declare the South Asian sub-continent a Nuclear Weapons Free Zone. If India takes the step, Pakistan will have no choice.

A famous saying goes might is always right. This is what exactly so called developed nations want rest of the world to do. Every country has the right and should defend its territary by hook or by crook. So why hue & cry if developing country including India does not sign CTBT. Russia & USA should show some courage to stop its development programs of WMD & lead the compaign of Non nuclear weapon World with an example.

from:
Ram Niwas Jangid

Posted on: Aug 14, 2010 at 09:40 IST

Yes, there is a need for nukes.
Without the invention of the nuke and its power to make politicians think twice, military analysts concluded that there would be a World War almost every generation.
Elimination of nukes or even rendering the nuclear arsenal of Russia or US inactive would be an incredibly dangerous proposition resulting in nothing save wholesale slaughter of billions.

from:
Sumar

Posted on: Aug 11, 2010 at 10:30 IST

Remember Pearl Harbor.

from:
Bill

Posted on: Aug 11, 2010 at 06:08 IST

The nuclear monopoly threatens to nuke other nations; it is America which wants its own force to be the only one who can use this and nobody else.

from:
veej

Posted on: Aug 10, 2010 at 12:08 IST

Simply excellent. There should not be any argument about it.

There is definitely NO sense in fighting each other with arsenals in 21st century.

Dialogue and discussions should be the weapons to resolve the conflicts. r/>

from:
ravinder Matte

Posted on: Aug 10, 2010 at 09:01 IST

Nuclear weapons are an issue that concerns every single one of us. Help free the world from nuclear weapons! Go to: Millionpleas.com, and be part of the world’ longest video chain letter. It is your voice that speaks out for the world's future!
It would not take you more than 1 min.

from:
Javier

Posted on: Aug 10, 2010 at 05:18 IST

The article is very optimistic about how a nuclear free world can be achieved but in reality it's not that easy for nations to give up nukes.There should be a greater debate on this topic because Pakistan views India as a bully in south Asia and their giving up nuclear weapons is highly unlikely.

But a very nice article with an optimistic mindset.

from:
praveen

Posted on: Aug 9, 2010 at 19:19 IST

If this nuclear race is continued there will be more and more Hibakushas and the entire human race shall be eliminated and is this what the two major powers want to happen? USA and Russia must urgently convene a world meet inviting all nations to discuss the the imminent dangers of nuclear war and they should first come forward to destroy all kinds of nuclear weapons.

from:
snarasimhan

Posted on: Aug 9, 2010 at 18:39 IST

We shall never give up hope for a world without nuclear weapons. It is a dream but sometimes dreams come true.
Peace, friendhip and harmony are essential for a peaceful world where we respect one another.
Should we achieve that the world will be a safe place and nuclear weapons will be unnecessary.

from:
Kurt Waschnig

Posted on: Aug 9, 2010 at 17:19 IST

The author's concern highlights the very urge for sustenance of human race and the need for peaceful co-existence in today's world. The mad race for arms has to be brought to an immediate pause. Japan has set a precedent to all modern states, by renouncing war as a sovereign right of a nation. Interestingly, the tabooed 'Hibakushas', are in fact, the only citizens in the modern world, under a constitution that has renounced war forever.
Japan's closest neighbours (the BIG 3 - USA, Russia and China) need to give up the mad race for arms and follow this island nation in this front. Nations need to pass on the message of hope and peace. It is time to cease display of military prowess to the world community and shut down strategic locations which may be disastrous for the survival of mankind. India and Pakistan should emulate the act of Japan and send a message to the world nations declaring that the South-Asian sub-continent is a Nuclear Weapon Free Zone.